<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Customs valuation disputes require admissible proof of undervaluation; uncorroborated parallel invoices and retracted statements cannot displace declared value.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=100321</link>
    <description>Transaction value in customs valuation was upheld because the Department failed to prove undervaluation with cogent, admissible and corroborated evidence. Parallel invoices were unauthenticated, overseas verification was untested by cross-examination, insurance values and e-mails were unreliable, and retracted statements lacked independent corroboration; the declared price could not therefore be rejected. As the re-determination of assessable value collapsed, the differential duty demand, confiscation and importer&#039;s penalty also failed, and no independent evidence supported the abettor&#039;s penalty. The extended period of limitation was likewise unsustainable because suppression or wilful misstatement was not proved, rendering the demand time-barred.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 01 Jun 2026 08:25:53 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 01 Jun 2026 08:25:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=904696" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Customs valuation disputes require admissible proof of undervaluation; uncorroborated parallel invoices and retracted statements cannot displace declared value.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=100321</link>
      <description>Transaction value in customs valuation was upheld because the Department failed to prove undervaluation with cogent, admissible and corroborated evidence. Parallel invoices were unauthenticated, overseas verification was untested by cross-examination, insurance values and e-mails were unreliable, and retracted statements lacked independent corroboration; the declared price could not therefore be rejected. As the re-determination of assessable value collapsed, the differential duty demand, confiscation and importer&#039;s penalty also failed, and no independent evidence supported the abettor&#039;s penalty. The extended period of limitation was likewise unsustainable because suppression or wilful misstatement was not proved, rendering the demand time-barred.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 01 Jun 2026 08:25:53 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=100321</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>